by Larry S. Rolirad
The only people I hear saying that our troops death tolls are low are the republicans. Just how many of our soldiers do republicans believe a corporate war is worth anyway? After all, our troops are only in iraq to protect the financial interests of corrupt American corporations, like Dick Cheney's Halliburton. In 2000, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. A year an a half later, Cheney was the vice president and he and GW Bush were funneling as much of our treasury as they could in no-bid contracts to Cheney's old company, Halliburton. Where is the outrage from republicans for a clear and obvious conflict of interest? After all, Dick Cheney is still making tons of money off of HALLIBURTON. And since GW Bush and all of the neocons in the corrupt Bush Regime started their Afghan and Iraq wars Halliburton stock has increased a staggering 740%. Who says this war is not about money? Are they all fools? Of course the Iraq was is about money, hundreds of billions of money.
People kill each other for handfuls of dollars every day. Don't you think that corporate executives, along with corrupt political hacks like Bush and Cheney, would not be willing to kill thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people to make hundreds of billions of dollars? If you don't believe that there are such evil people, like Bush and Cheney, and those who are their corporate masters, you are a fool.
But regardless of all of the billions being made by corrupt corporations republicans will always believe that the troop death counts are low. Republicans apparently have zero regard or empathy for the families of all those killed defending the financial interests of corrupt corporations. Republicans have zero compassion for all of the loved ones of our fallen soldiers. Brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, grandparents, friends, or those who are engaged to be married to one of our nation's finest, all left with broken hearts which will never mend. Why do republicans have so little regard for these people? I know that republicans laugh at people who 'feel'. Republicans call people who care about others as 'touchy feely'. Republicans belittle any signs of public affection or concern for one's fellow man. Perhaps they display zero concern for our troops because they are afraid of showing their emotion. Or perhaps they lack the ability to have any empathy for others. Or maybe a combination of both. One thing can be said with certainty, the trail of tears from the loss of even one of our soldiers is endless.
If republicans put the interests of the United States, ahead of the best interests of their corrupt political party, the war in Iraq would certainly have be avoided. But republicans never like to use diplomacy when they have to opportunity to use violence to solve a problem. Remember, any fool can start a war. It takes someone with foresight, wisdom, and intelligence to avoid war. Unfortunately, GW Bush has none of those qualities.
The costs in American lives in each war the United States has participated in its history are listed below. Note that in Bush's Iraq War we have lost 1,925 American troops, so far. That will soon grow to half the number of Americans who died freeing our country from England, or 4,435 colonialists. Freeing our people from the tyrannical and oppressive King George of England was worth the effort and lives. The lives lost in Bush's Iraq War are not. Republicans continue to say the troop death count in Iraq is low and acceptable. But almost all of those republicans do not have any of their sons, daughters, brothers or sisters in Iraq. It is ironic how those who bang the drums of war the loudest are the last ones to sacrifice themselves or one of their own in war. The appropriate name for them is "Chickenhawks".
Revolutionary War ..... 4,435 DEAD
War of 1812 ..... 2,260 DEAD
Mexican War ..... 73,283 DEAD
Civil War: (combined) ..... 558,052 DEAD
-----Confederate..... 198,524 DEAD
-----Union ..... 359,528 DEAD
Spanish-American War ..... 2,401 DEAD
World War I ..... 116,708 DEAD
World War II ..... 407,316 DEAD
Korean War ..... 33,651 DEAD
Vietnam War ..... 58,244 DEAD
GHW Bush's Gulf War ..... 293 DEAD
GW Bush's Iraq War ..... 1,925 DEAD ... and rising quickly ...
Since Americans could be in Iraq for at least another ten to fifteen years, the death toll could be in the tens of thousands. And all of those dead Americans would have been sent to Iraq to die because Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the neocons in the Bush Regime ALL LIED. They deliberately LIED to justify declaring war against a country which posed a ZERO threat to the United States, or the American people. They LIED when they said Iraq could attack the United States within a 45 minute period. They LIED when they said that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. They LIED when they said that Hussein and Osama bin Laden were allies. They LIED when they said that Iraq had a nuclear capability. They LIED when they said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They LIED when they said they the Iraq War was to liberate the Iraqis. They LIED when they said "Mission Accomplished". They LIED, they LIED, and 1904 American soldiers have DIED, so far.
Check out the costs of all the wars America has been involved in the chart below. Note that Bush's Iraq War is just beginning and the total projected cost could exceed ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. This is based on the American presence in Iraq to last at least another ten years. The cost of Bush's Iraq War will be higher ($1,156 billion) than all of the other wars in our history combined ($921.9 billion), minus the cost of WWII. At least in WWII we fought in two theaters against two huge and formidable enemies, Japan and Germany. In Iraq, we are just fighting a rag tag group of insurgents, which by the way, we will never, I repeat, NEVER eradicate from the country of Iraq. For every insurgent killed there will be another ten or hundred to take his place. (Note: Totals are in present day dollars.) (Ref: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)
Revolutionary War.....1.2 BILLION
War of 1812.....0.7 BILLION
Mexican War ..... 1.1 BILLION
Civil War (combined) ..... 44.4 BILLION
-----Confederate ..... 17.1 BILLION
-----Union ..... 27.3 BILLION
Spanish-American War ..... 6.3 BILLION
World War I ..... 196.5 BILLION
World War II ..... 2,091.3 BILLION
Korean War ..... 263.9 BILLION
Vietnam War ..... 346.7 BILLION
GHW Bush's Gulf War ..... 61.1 BILLION
GW Bush's Iraq War ..... 196.1 BILLION ... so far ...
Since the projected period Americans will have to remain in Iraq is at least ten years, the total of Bush's Iraq War could be a staggering 1,156 billion dollars. That is 1.156 TRILLION dollars. (Ref: http://costofwar.com/)
Not only is Bush's Iraq War not worth the cost of our dead soldiers and the hundred thousand dead Iraqis, it is also not worth the staggering cost in cold cash. The Iraq War is the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States. And the dunce who started it is the political prostitute GW Bush whose every move is controlled by his corporate pimps.
Footnote: Even though Saddam Hussein was killing his own people while GHW Bush was president no republican condemned GHW Bush. No republican while Reagan or GHW Bush were presidents talked about liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein. In fact, no republican from 1980 to 2003 said anything about liberating the Iraqi people, even though a half million Kurds were murdered by Saddam Hussein. Most of the Kurds were slaughtered while Ronald Reagan was president. Why were republicans so silent while a half million Kurds were being murdered under Reagan and GHW Bush? Republicans whine today saying "But Saddam Hussein was killing his people". Apparently it takes a long, long, long, long, long time for republicans to find compassion for others. But while republicans are crying out for the liberation of the Iraqi people they aren't saying a word about liberating the billion other people in the world who are in countries with ruthless, oppressive and murderous dictators. How about North Korea? How about China? How about Cuba? Oh yeah, the oil was easier to steal in Iraq.
Copyright 2005, Larry S. Rolirad, All Rights Reserved
This article may be reproduced and distributed as long as the author is clearly credited.
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
Blame the insurgents!
03.10.2005 08:44
Activist
Funny ...
03.10.2005 12:20
P
"Activist?" You're only fooling yourself, mate.
03.10.2005 13:17
Actual Activist
But insurgents are killing far more Iraqis than the allies are.
03.10.2005 17:39
Activists
That is wrong
03.10.2005 21:58
And who is to say that a withdrawal would indeed lead to extreme bloodshed? We really do not have a clue about that. It might happen or it might not happen, though that some secteraian strife will happen is probably likely as the US is in fact fomenting this themselves (e.g. by using Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite paras against Sunni Arab areas) Fact of the matter is that a civil war had been less likely if the occupation had ended earlier. Military brass in the US Army recognizes that the mere prescence of troops there is feeding the insugency. Problem is that soldiers are "hard" targets, collaborators with the occupation are much softer and easier to kill. This is the war that is happening, and it is very very unfortunate that it has come to this.
Dear activist. Please do not accuse the "left" for not condemning terrorist attacks: "we" have been doing this for ages. If you are so moral, why aren't you at least condemning the indiscriminate use of violence, torure and imprisonment done by the occupation forces. At least then you wouldn't be what you are accusing "us" of - a hypocrite.
Khawaga
Insurgents = innocent civilians
03.10.2005 22:26
Todays headlines from Afghanistan are that troops killed 21 Taleban no doubt some of them were still in there mothers arms ..
topo lupo
Begone, Spook
04.10.2005 05:25
Sorry, they are not the bad guys here, and anyone who's read Sun Tzu knows that the "Coalition" is fighting a losing battle.
And the Resistance would have to willingly target civilians for years before even approaching the civilian death toll caused by the illegal invasion.
And the recent exposure of a UK False Flag Operation in Basra, coupled with the stated US/UK goal of achieving "Divide & Rule" by stoking civil unrest, proves that many of the attacks being blamed on the Resistance were not their doing at all.
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
But allied troops don't intentionally kill civilians!
04.10.2005 08:58
Also as the aim of the insurgents is to overthrow the new democratic government of Iraq and impose an islamic state, how can it be moral for coalition troops to pull out of Iraq too soon and allow the new democratic government of Iraq to be overthrown and Islamic fundamentalism imposed, turning Iraq into another Iran where people have no freedom? Who would you rather ruled in Iraq, a democratic government based on the western model of democracy. Or the Islamic fundamentalists of Al Qaeda who would also turn Iraq into a haven for international terrorism from which to target the rest of the world?
Activist
Sorry but they do
04.10.2005 12:23
Listen, the military knows very well how to fight an insurgency, they know very well that civilians will get killed. By default starting a war in our day and age basically means that you will knowingly and intentionally kill civilians. You have to go back to WWI for a ratio where military deaths were higher than civilians.
What the "allied" are trying to do is to remove the "people sea" from the "guerilla fish". This is the only way to fight an insurgency. Strategic hamlets, pacification, sunni triangle, red zones. All what this means are areas where anything more or less goes.
Now really, and please answer me this. Why don't the US count civilian casualties? (and as one pointed out earlier, number of insurgents killed can also just be civilians counted as such, this is what happened in Vietnam afterall where the war was fought as arithmetics).
I do commend your concern, but please open up your eyes. What you get served through the mainstream media is more or less disinformation, which is as much part of war as is sending soldiers to an Arab country.
Khawaga
Re: Your Disinfo
05.10.2005 05:59
I love the term, referencing "the Allies". Great Disinformation. Subtle ...
"ever intentionally killed civilians in Iraq?
As soon as Bush LIED in order to start the war. As soon as the first bombs fell. They are well aware that at least 30% of "smart bombs" miss their mark - and they were using J-DAMS, which are even worse.
Fallujah.
And seeing as leaked UK documents prove that both the US and UK were intent upon creating the ideal circumstances for "Divide & Rule" (Iraq: Options Paper - March 8, 2002), that old and very bloody Colonial trick, we can be sure that many of the uninvestigated attacks idly blamed on a certain ethnic group, were in fact False Flags, carried out by both parties.
The recent exposure of a British False Flag in Basra confirms this widely-reported suspicion.
"When have they drove vehicles into packed crowds as do the inurgents?"
That's a Red Herring, however, we may never know. As the Basra incident showed, I believe they do it by remote control. And if you do not understand, please go read up on False Flag Operations, and Fourth Generation (Guerrilla) Warfare.
"When have they bombed people queing for jobs?"
I think they prefer to bomb them while they're sleeping, and catch them in their homes - using 5,000 lbs. devices ... Much, much bigger. I know it doesn't get the same media attention, but that is an essential part of their plan, and why you're so poorly informed - if you really do believe these things you've heard the people who told you "Saddam has WMD!!" were true, that you are repeating here.
"The only reason civilians are being killed by coalition troops is because of when they get caught in the cross fire during gun battles between coalition troops and the insurgents."
Bullsh*t. Innocent people are routinely killed and tortured by US troops, and this has been true from the first day of this illegal act of Naked Aggression. This is a proven fact, supported by the Generals, pictures and video, and the words of the soldiers themselves.
"Like what happened in Fallujah when the insurgents had taken control of a whole city and refused to give up their arms or leave the city and had to be driven out by force."
They hadn't "taken over the city". This is a Resistance Movement. The city was theirs to begin with. These are not the Bad Guys here. They didn't have to be driven out of their homes, or anywhere else. The US/UK are in their country in full violation of the Laws that were created by men with the Terror of World War fresh in mind, who wanted to spare us from this Madness.
And the Americans made the conscious decision to use chemical weapons and napalm, while barring doctors from entering the area, and residents from leaving.
"Also as the aim of the insurgents is to overthrow the new democratic government of Iraq"
No, the aim of the Iraqi Resistance is to drive the Foreign Invader, who slaughtered their countrymen and family members without compenction or apology, out on their asses, just as International Law says they should.
And they don't need to overthrow anything. That particular bribed mob of puppets (Read Seymour Hersh for more on this ...Wonder where Iraq's billions disappeared to?) has no power outside the "Green Zone", has no legitimacy (It is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to alter an Occupied Country in such a manner.), and is simply a smokescreen/PR device for the Neo-Fascists who created this war.
"and impose an islamic state"
Neo-Fascist BS. Goebbels would be proud ...
Another Tactic of Disinformation.
Neither of your WH Talking Points would be the outcome of a US/UK withdrawal.
The US is the number one killer of Iraqis, and also the source of the conflict.
The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
Top 10 Bad Reasons for “Staying the Course” in Iraq
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/20051003huber.html
Bush's Dilemma
http://www.rense.com/general67/forrm.htm
What was this man doing?
A spokesman for the Iraqi border police in Najaf, said Peter, an engineer, and 10 Iraqis were carrying weapons and surveillance equipment in several vehicles when police stopped them on a road between the Saudi border and the Iraqi city of Najaf and took the Briton into custody because he had entered Iraq without a required visa.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/051004/481/bag10810041535
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
No they don't intentionally kill Iraqi civilians you are wrong!
05.10.2005 08:16
But to state as you that allied troops deliberatly target inocent civilians is stretching the truth too far. Some allied troops have even been court martialed for needlessly shooting civilians! Allied troops have even been court martialled and jailed for abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Gahrad prison in Iraq.
There would be a massive public outcry if it were ever found out that allied troops were deliberatly targetting innocent Iraqi civilians. Show me news sources where it has been reported that allied troops have deliberatly killed innocent civilians!
Activist
Baha
05.10.2005 08:35
http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/121504_fisk.htm
What kind of Activist is our pro-war propaganda puching poster?
Re: Spook Droppings
06.10.2005 06:00
So what? That's another Straw Man. You said one thing, and I proved you wrong.
And actually, aerial bombardments are a daily occurence.
"and civilian areas were not targetted."
You don't know that, and try telling that to the residents of the neighbourhoods destroyed by US/UK bombing - not to mention those slaughtered during the 13-year ILLEGAL bombing campaign, carried out by the US/UK, in the name of "softening up" this future target.
Bush/Bliar's decision to wage this war was a conscious decision to kill innocent people.
"Since the end of the first part of the war to oust the Baath regime allied troops have not used ariel bombings."
Yes, they have.
Listen, if you are this poorly-informed, perhaps you should go do some research, rather than continuing to comment here.
"But to state as you that allied troops deliberatly target inocent civilians is stretching the truth too far."
Not at all. Troops returning from tours have stated directly that they were directed to open fire on anyone they encountered in certain areas, and civilian areas have been shelled and doused in Napalm, while doctors were barred from helping the victims, and civilians were forced to remain.
"Some allied troops have even been court martialed for needlessly shooting civilians!"
Please support that ...
"Allied troops have even been court martialled and jailed for abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Gahrad prison in Iraq."
Right ... and making a small example of those low-ranking Scapegoats pretty much killed the story, didn't it? However, it's no great secret that those orders came directly from the top, and that torture is used as a tactic of Intimidation.
"There would be a massive public outcry if it were ever found out that allied troops were deliberatly targetting innocent Iraqi civilians."
Indeed.
That's why the British smashed into the Iraqi Police Station in Basra, and incited a riot which killed several Iraqis, rather than allow their SAS operatives, caught in the midst of a False Flag Operation, to be interrogated. Also the reason that the MSM, in unison, destroyed the story and omitted vital pieces of information, shoosing to air a Cover Story from the people who said "Iraq has WMD!!!", which didn't surface until the middle of the following day, and was directly contradicted by earlier official statements.
But it's an old Colonial Trick, and leaked documents, like the one cited above, prove that both the US and UK were intent on creating the conditions for "Divide & Rule" a full year before their war began, by focusing on existing ethnic tensions. If you study the media's work over the past two months, especially that of the US, UK, and Israel, you will see that they are a willing partner.
"Show me news sources where it has been reported ..."
Read any of the reports about the civilian death toll of the invasion. The decision to carry out this Act of Aggression was a decision to kill innocent people.
Besides, that is Disinformation, and you damn well know it. I have worked inside both the American and Canadian medias, and I understand how that particular game is played.
I have provided foreign sources, as well as reports from over the past year from sources such as Dahr Jamal, of Iraqis reporting their cars being wired at checkpoints, and I'd venture a guess that you're the one who said that wasn't good enough - as you drolled on in Talking Points of proven LIARS and War Criminals.
Just yesterday, the US attempted to explain away the fact that US vehicles have been used in attacks upon Iraqis, by claiming they were stolen in the US, and shipped to Iraq by the "insurgents".
How stupid do they think we are ... ?
And besides, this isn't the question at hand.
The question at hand is the monumental cost of this illegal, immoral War of Choice, launched by a relatively small group of Extremists, built upon conscious LIES.
www.iraqbodycount.org
www.newamericancentury.org
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Homepage: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
The no fly zones were to protect the Kurds and Shias!
07.10.2005 08:46
Total dis-information there! The bombings then from 1991 to 2003 were by planes patroling the no-fly zones which were set up to protect Kurds in the north of Iraq and Shias in the South! They only fired missiles when shot at or locked on by radar by Iraqi forces. They did not fire missiles at civilian areas during the patroling of the no fly zones, only at military targets which had attacked them first.
Had the allies not set up the no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq how many more Kurds and Shias would Saddam's evil regime have slaughtered. You forget that before the war Saddam's regime had slaughtered up to 300,000 Iraqis mainly Shias and Kurds and had forced around two million Iraqis to flee their own country as refugees. I suggest that you do some research into the history of Iraq before slagging off America and Britain for ousting Saddam Husseins' regime of terror!
Activist
Re: Your Disinformation
07.10.2005 20:09
Quote: " not to mention those slaughtered during the 13-year ILLEGAL bombing campaign, carried out by the US/UK, in the name of "softening up" this future target."
"Total dis-information there!"
Not at all. You're the only one here dishing that out. If you do not understand what that is, you should do some research, though I suspect you're already well-versed ...
Field Guide To Hasbara (Zionist Propaganda):
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/28174.php
25 Tactics of Disinformation:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/82358_comment.php#82516
Logical Fallacies: Of Propaganda & Disinformation:
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/161414.php
"The bombings then from 1991 to 2003 were by planes patroling the no-fly zones"
But the No-Fly Zones were not legitimized by an Resolution or Treaty. They were illegal military incursions into sovereign territory, Acts of War, in other words, designed to "soften up" this future target.
"which were set up to protect Kurds in the north of Iraq and Shias in the South!"
That is another LIE, refuted by facts on the ground.
When these groups actually needed this protection, it did not come. It was promised that if they rose up against the Regime, they would be supported. They did, but this support never came, and US helicopters, supplied to Saddam by many of the same criminals ifound in DC today, were used in the attacks upon the Kurds.
"They only fired missiles when shot at or locked on by radar by Iraqi forces."
That is another LIE. This is the only time the press paid attention. Their daily sorties went ignored for most of these 13 years, as did their civilian death tolls.
"Had the allies"
I love that bit of subtle Propaganda, 'the allies' ...
"You forget that before the war Saddam's regime had slaughtered up to 300,000 Iraqis mainly Shias and Kurds and had forced around two million Iraqis to flee their own country as refugees."
The numbers are yet to be supported with evidence, but I understand how brutal was the Regime created and supported by the US under the same people controlling the country today. However, that is an irrelevant Red Herring.
Now THAT is Disinformation ... !
"I suggest that you do some research into the history of Iraq ..."
Why, because I said that to you when you showed yourself, elsewhere, to be wholly uninformed? Believe me, friend, I've studied this at length.
"before slagging off America and Britain for ousting Saddam Husseins' regime of terror!"
If that's all they had done, that would be fine. It's the aborgations of International Law, the LIES they fed us, the thousands upon thousands they've slaughtered and tortured, the crimes they've committed, and the BILLIONS they made in the process that has me hot under the collar.
And if you're so up on Iraqi history, let's not forget how Saddam became what he was, or why ...
Anyhow, back to the subject you couldn't address:
"There would be a massive public outcry if it were ever found out that allied troops were deliberatly targetting innocent Iraqi civilians."
Indeed.
That's why the British smashed into the Iraqi Police Station in Basra, and incited a riot which killed several Iraqis, rather than allow their SAS operatives, caught in the midst of a False Flag Operation, to be interrogated. Also the reason that the MSM, in unison, destroyed the story and omitted vital pieces of information, shoosing to air a Cover Story from the people who said "Iraq has WMD!!!", which didn't surface until the middle of the following day, and was directly contradicted by earlier official statements.
But it's an old Colonial Trick, and leaked documents, like the one cited above, prove that both the US and UK were intent on creating the conditions for "Divide & Rule" a full year before their war began, by focusing on existing ethnic tensions. If you study the media's work over the past two months, especially that of the US, UK, and Israel, you will see that they are a willing partner.
"Show me news sources where it has been reported ..."
Read any of the reports about the civilian death toll of the invasion. The decision to carry out this Act of Aggression was a decision to kill innocent people.
Besides, that is Disinformation, and you damn well know it. I have worked inside both the American and Canadian medias, and I understand how that particular game is played.
I have provided foreign sources, as well as reports from over the past year from sources such as Dahr Jamal, of Iraqis reporting their cars being wired at checkpoints, and I'd venture a guess that you're the one who said that wasn't good enough - as you drolled on in Talking Points of proven LIARS and War Criminals.
Just yesterday, the US attempted to explain away the fact that US vehicles have been used in attacks upon Iraqis, by claiming they were stolen in the US, and shipped to Iraq by the "insurgents".
How stupid do they think we are ... ?
And besides, this isn't the question at hand.
The question at hand is the monumental cost of this illegal, immoral War of Choice, launched by a relatively small group of Extremists, built upon conscious LIES.
www.iraqbodycount.org
www.newamericancentury.org
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Homepage: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com